Interesting idea , but debating is not for everybody and while i agree that debates promote being questioning about things and seeing two sides of a story it's not for everybody. And besides , by the time you reach university you should have some idea about what your preferences are and i know that as a university student focusing on my passion (assuming it was not debating) the last thing i would want is yet another mandatory class to attend.I agree that speech and debate should always be an option and be recommended but forcing it? i think that's entirely different.It's much like the mathematics issue in high school(and university even though advanced mathematics isn't mandatory) where the math forced upon students doesn't help them at all in the future unless it is a select career path. As somebody deeply interested in politics i think debating is a great way to see both sides in a discussion and make better compromises and practicing getting your point across but it's hardly mandatory for most people who want to pursue something different.

The First Round was supposed to be an acceptance round... So, my opponent must forfeit their next round... The reason we should do this is because students benefit from being able to argue a point of high controversy correctly. Also, my opponent failed to recognize that I mentioned SPEECH AND DEBATE... Speaking skills are very important... all children ought to learn how to address a large crowd or even a small group and understand how not to be afraid or nervous. This is my frame work for my argument...

Students ought to be required to take 1 speech and debate due to the fact that the benefits outweigh any harms.

Con says "It's much like the mathematics issue in high school(and university even though advanced mathematics isn't mandatory) where the math forced upon students doesn't help them at all in the future unless it is a select career path."

My response: this is irrelevant due to the fact that speech and debate is not part of a career path... There is no one career in which one NEEDS to take S&D it is a supplementary skill that children would benefit from. They would benefit from understanding logical fallacies (way to many used in the media, especially on topics like gun control and healthcare) as well as
"Increased attendance
Higher tests scores
Rise in college acceptance
Unique benefits for at-risk students
Reduced drop-out rates"

To further my case I will quote the NSDA "Utilizing these [speech and debate] skills inside and outside of the classroom teaches students the value of critical thinking, the ability to clearly articulate thoughts and ideas, to answer questions logically with clarity, and to think on one's feet. Additionally, students develop interpersonal skills such as conflict resolution, assertiveness, and listening to peers. These important life skills empower youth to become engaged citizens, skilled professionals, and honorable leaders in our society."

See children gain an enormous amount of supplementary skills from S&D that may not be able to learned elsewhere which is why S&D ought to be mandatory for one semester.